Bad Thinking and Worse Argumentation

Why is it that so often those with ‘strong opinions’ can be so ignorant of their subject matter? Unfortunately when someone has a strong opinion and they breed it with ignorance (and in this case ignorance is a lack of familiarity or knowledge of a subject) then the offspring of that is almost always an inflexible conclusion that no amount of truth, facts or experience can counter.

When that ‘strong opinion’ becomes entangled with judgment you end up with a lethal cocktail of hate and imbecility.

Most unfortunately those with ignorant, strong, inflexible positions don’t really want to be confused by any facts, they already ‘know’ how things are. They just “tell it like it is…” even if they have no evidence, logic, experience, or expertise. Those are unnecessary and unwanted.

One could probably do a pretty smooth interchange in this post by switching the news clipping with any number of passages from Dawkins and the post would still work just fine. Funny how the two ends of the spectrum work so similarly.

I would hardly put Dawkins at the other end of the spectrum from this. Let’s be fair. The man is a scientist and it’s not like he hasn’t examined any evidence or made any arguments based on science that have some logic to them. There may well be ‘atheists’ at the other end of the spectrum making arguments as poorly as this lady but one of them is certainly not Dawkins. Pick up his latest book. You will recant the above statement.

That’s sort of the point though Brian. Dawkin’s ‘militant’ atheism is a little more informed. That means something (whatever it is). Analogy: whose opinion is more informed? Someone who has studied political science and history (and whatever heck the else those persons study who are informed about such matters) and are ‘militantly’ Democratic or liberal or whatever. Or some teabagger ‘refudiating’ them yelling “Americuh! God, guns, and country! We’re taking our country back!” Perhaps I could have worded above differently, so let’s say, just because someone is militant or entrenched in their position does not correlate to equal amounts of ignorance. Some opinions, even if ‘militant’, are more informed (though not necessarily correct–that’s another conversation).

Next comment probably has to be in a new string to avoid one -word lines.

I see your point, and I wasn’t trying to equate levels of ignorance. But Dawkins injects so much bile into his discussions of God’s existence (or, more appropriately, lack thereof) that it’s simply off-putting. I suppose I’m prejudiced on that point; I expect more from a serious scholar than from a politician or run-of-the-mill “yokel.”

I mean, “parents teaching their children religion is child abuse”? Really? That’s scientific rationality and intellectual rigor? Sounds more like consuming ideology to me.

“When that ‘strong opinion’ becomes entangled with judgment you end up with a lethal cocktail of hate and imbecility.”

Unfortunately, your man is quite guilty of this himself, as are both sides of the spectrum due to that particular cocktail. Simply because someone spouts hate and bitter rhetoric about an issue that happens to be backed by some (very good) science or methodology, or principles, or whatever, doesn’t change the fact that it’s still hate and bitter rhetoric that’s being spouted. And let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that one side is “more informed” than the other. The militant leftist is no more driven by true scientific method and discovery than the hardline right winger is driven by the transformative power of the gospel of Jesus. (a bad juxtaposition since it dichotomizes scientific method and the gospel but you get my point. And wouldn’t it be astounding if someone who adheres to both could catch the popular eye?)

But at the end of the day, I look at both sides of this mess and ask, “Who cares?”